BURLINGTON, Vt. — Burlington’s city council is requesting more information from Vermont’s Agency of Transportation about projects related to a plan to extend Amtrak service to the city.
The Seven Days website reports that residents are opposed to a plan for overnight storage of Amtrak trains at Burlington Union Station when the Ethan Allen Express is extended beyond its current endpoint of Rutland, Vt., in 2021 or 2022. A second track would also be constructed by the transportation agency and Vermont Rail System in front of the station between King and College streets, a distance of two blocks, or about 900 feet.
Residents contend the siding would bring additional noise and pollution, with a half-dozen saying it would destroy their quality of life, the website reports. One claimed at a Monday night council meeting that once the track is built, “the railroad will do whatever it wants and we’ll be powerless to stop it.” He also contended the location could become a rail yard.
Construction of the second track would also displace an existing bike trail, and the city is concerned about the cost of replacing it.
Good grief! The things people are concerned about. NIMBY’s!
The new route will be at least an hour faster to New York and will reopen service not only to Burlington but also to the important college town of Middlebury. Hopefully direct service to Montreal will come as early as 2021/22 as well. Hundreds of Canadians come to Burlington to shop and dine. we can tap that market to fill seats twice, first with Canadian day trippers m, then with Vermonters heading for Albany and New York.
Just need to ask although I’m not that familiar with the demographics in Northern Vermont, but what is running Ethan Allen service trough to Burlington going to offer Burlington area residents that the Vermonter already provides from Essex Junction just a few miles away?
Why is there so little room for tracks on the west side (track side) of Burlington Union Station? I seem to recall many years ago that there were two (?) platforms and 4 or 5 tracks there. After Rutland Railway passenger service ended around 1953, the station and tracks remained intact for a long time.
Vermont has been working for at least the past five years to reopen service directly to Montreal. It’s been a slog, as we needed an actual US/Canada treaty to allow for Customs and Immigration formalities for both countries to be conducted in Central Station that has finally been done. Now the process is underway to get funding from both countries for building the Central Station holding area and for any track upgrades.
We hope to be able to extend service in the next two years, but nothing goes quickly on multinational projects. Progress was stymied by both the US, Canadian and Quebec elections. Candidly this will probably be further delayed by the 2020 poll here, but 2021/22 is a reasonable point to hope to arrive.
What are the actual odds of ever connecting to Montreal?
The waterfront area was redeveloped over the past 30 years. The former Central Vermont yards just north of the station were removed entirely and replaced with a park. The Echo Museum/Aquarium was built between the station area and the lake.
The station indeed closed to passenger service in 1953 and ultimately only one track remained. For many years it served as the headquarters of the power company for northern Vermont–Green Mountain Power. It was reborn as part of a comprehensive plan to remove industrial facilities from the waterfront in the area just west of downtown Burlington. Instead there are now parks, a museum, power-boat marinas, restaurants, the Lake Champlain ferry terminal, the bike path (much of it on the one-time Rutland RR “Island Line” route) and the renovated Union Station, which has served the “Champlain Flyer” commuter train and the VRS excursion and Dinner Train services in recent years. These trains were/are serviced in the VRS yards three blocks to the south–and that was also where it was always assumed the Amtrak service center would be as well, until VRS claimed no capacity due mostly to the number of O/S tank cars in storage there. But because an existing Amtrak facility exists only 36 miles north in St. Albans a better option exists without invading the VRS yards and Montreal beckons, hopefully by 2021/22.
A second track could be restored, but to accommodate a modern platform and the intended Amtrak service facility and to relocate the Burlington bike path to the lake (west) side of the track(s), only 8 feet will remain between the eastern-most track and the Wing Building apartments at track level. That narrow easement will have to host fuel and sewage trucks every night, as well as passenger loadings if the train is serviced there.
The station was beautifully restored as part of the Main Street Landing redevelopment. The builders incorporated housing, offices and commercial space as part of their plan, but left the magnificent waiting room/concourse ready for regular Amtrak passenger trains to return–which they have always supported. That is part of the tragedy of this dispute. No one expected an overnight Amtrak service center and a daytime freight switching service track to be built 8 feet from the windows/balconies of these condominiums. Truthfully they will become unlivable if the proposed changes are made. The dispute is about where (and there are multiple choices besides Union Station) to service the train–not if it should come, nor if it should stop at Union Station. Of course it should! But what is being proposed is a bad plan for the many reasons I’ve outlined in my earlier posts.
The invocation of NIMBYism to characterize the opponents to the Burlington waterfront rail project is both unfair and misinformed. Melinda Moulton risked millions of dollars to redevelop Union Station as the vibrant Main Street Landing project, bringing people, life and activity back to the waterfront. She has never opposed Amtrak coming to Burlington and repeated that point to open her comments Monday night. This plan doubles the tracks King to College Street and does bring it to within 8 feet of the building. Overnight sewage will be pumped from Amtrak, engines fueled and cars cleaned. By day the railroad plans to assemble freight trains on the new tracks directly adjacent to Echo. Streets will be blocked to the ferries and lakefront. All this could be done at the existing Amtrak facility in St. Albans until we get the trains to Montreal–or short term in Burlington’s existing yards. This plan moves the yards 3 blocks north and is totally unneeded to get Amtrak here!
A few further corrections: The design for the new Amtrak/freight train service facility at Union Station does indeed bring track to within 8 feet of the building–essential in trying to squeeze an added track and a platform, plus ultimately a relocated bike-path, into the narrow footprint between Echo (Burlington’s science museum, and aquarium), the Pecor boat storage building, the railway and Union Station with 2 active tracks. Each night the Amtrak train will create diesel fumes, noise and obvious disruption. The access for the fuel and sewage trucks will be very narrow. In winter a truck could easily fall into the roadbed. Spills will occur. By day VRS plans to use the tracks to switch and “build” freight trains. If the added tracks are built they will be used. Of course Union Station will be the Amtrak stopping point, but not like this!
From the start the planning process for locating the Amtrak service facility has cynically tried to play one neighborhood against another. The ETHAN ALLEN train should continue to St Albans and use the already existing Amtrak service center in the yards there. If this can not be done the Burlington yards are free of the problems at Union Station, but VRS claims capacity issues there. They store tank cars there, largely creating the issue, but getting to St Albans also allows the train soon to go to Montreal. The train will not be here until 2021/22. Time exists to fix the track BTV/ESX and avoid harming anyone.
The study that provoked this heart-breaking controversy asked the wrong question–where to service the train only in Burlington. If you ask the wrong question you get the wrong answer! The correct issue was how to get to the already existing Amtrak facility only 36 miles away and how to unite Vermont’s two passenger routes, currently separated by only 7.97 miles of Class One, 10mph passenger track, into a true unified network. Ironically fixing the Burlington-Essex Jct. branch line is already a priority in Five Year State Rail Plan–but not funded. The USDOT just today announced $24M in grants for new or upgraded passenger routes. This is on top of over $1B in other rail money potentially available over the next 18 months–not to mention the legislature’s ability to address such a modest $4-7M funding need. This is where Vermont needs to go!
No one in the group opposing the construction of an Amtrak servicing facility at Burlington Union Station (only 36 miles from the already extent one in St. Albans) is opposed to the ETHAN ALLEN. Indeed Melinda Moulton, the leader of the group that restored Burlington Union Station, has been eagerly awaiting Amtrak for over 20 years (the ETHAN ALLEN extension was first planned by the late Senator James Jeffords in 1996). The problem is the design and location of the proposed facility and the tragic lack of foresight in Vermont esssentially constructing two disconnected passenger routes–sperated by one 7.97 miles of track that at ptresent is only in Class One (eg. 10mph) passenger condition.
For those willing to commit to a ten minute read my paper on this issue prepared for the Burlington Mayor/City Council follows. Readers may cry NIMBY, but you will forgive me if I find that unfair. The study that brought about this ridiculous controversy asked the wrong question–where to locate a service center only in Burlington. If you ask the wrong question you get the wrong answer!
Memo for the Vermont Rail Advisory Council
Recommendation:
The ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS Amtrak train should not terminate at, nor be stored in Burlington.
Rather, the 7.97-mile-long New England Central RR (NECR) Burlington to Essex Junction branch line should be upgraded to allow Amtrak trains to proceed to St. Albans to be serviced and stored overnight at the existing Amtrak layover facility, until operations are extended to Montreal.
• Soon this will facilitate direct travel from Montreal to downtown Burlington on the train, which should be of great tourism and business benefit to Burlington, the state of Vermont and Canada. It is expected arrangements will be complete early in the next decade to permit both current Vermont Amtrak trains to reach Montreal.
• As noted below our proposed schedule also permits a immediate experiment with commuter ridership on the ETHAN ALLEN between St. Albans, Essex Junction and Burlington.
• This proposal also avoids the need to construct a second track and to relocate the bike-path at Burlington Union Station. Ultimately money spent to create a Burlington storage location would be wasted when service extends to Canada.
• This work would also unlock the potential to use the All-Earth Rail RDC (rail diesel car) trains in real regional rail service, as through operations from Burlington (and points south) would be possible to both Montpelier and St. Albans. Currently passengers from north and east of Essex Junction cannot be routed to Burlington by passenger trains of any carrier on a regular basis.
Issues with the proposed layover locations in Burlington: None of the options in downtown Burlington are ideal for parking and servicing the Amtrak ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS when it begins service from Rutland to Burlington, probably in the autumn of 2021 or the spring of 2022.
1. The Urban Reserve setting places the train in clear view of numerous apartments and construction of new utilities and for new road access will be needed. While neighborhood worries about locomotive/electric generator noise will be largely mitigated by the installation of off-train ground-level electric power hook-ups, the aesthetics of the train being parked in such a beautiful view-shed are real and compellingly suggest another location. For example, sewage tanks will have to be pumped in clear view after every trip!
2. Burlington Union Station has multiple problems. Parking the train there requires the installation of two expensive switches to/from a newly constructed passing and storage track. This in turn forces a relocation of the Burlington Bike Path to the other side of the tracks. This new right of way easement is a very serious concern to the ECHO Center. Only reconfiguration of the platform is required if the train is serviced elsewhere. This platform work is funded in the next VTRANS budget.
3. Recently released design drafts suggest VTRANS may be considering a dead-end stub track ending at a bumper for the Union Station location. This would be a disastrous mistake—as it would assure the train would never go beyond Burlington. This squanders any future use of the new platforms for regional or commuter rail and more importantly precludes Burlington to Montreal Amtrak service without a full rebuild of the Burlington location—a tragic waste of money.
4. It is also critical to note that the distance between streets at the waterfront along the rail line in front of Union Station which cannot be blocked for extended periods of time will preclude any freight train from being stored or held overnight on the new passing track at Union Station. Only passenger trains will be short enough to be “stabled” there. This sadly assures that the ETHAN ALLEN would be kept there overnight on every trip if this facility is built.
5. Should the train be extended to Montreal the need for this costly expenditure on the Burlington waterfront will vanish. This could deter the highly desirable extension of the ETHAN ALLEN route to Canada. If the nearest to Burlington that Montreal riders can reach by train is Essex Junction on the VERMONTER, it is unlikely that many will use the train to visit Burlington.
6. The residents of the apartments in the Main Street Station complex have very legitimate concerns about noise, diesel emissions, sewage smells and aesthetics if the train parks there. As noted above, the noise from the train’s electric power generators will be largely mitigated by the installation of ground/off-train power connections, but there will still be substantial noise from switching, cleaning, stocking and servicing the train, again including the need to pump out sewage tanks. Further, the view of the lake will be reduced for both Main Street Landing residents and for the general population during the train’s layovers. If there were no better alternatives use of this location might be unavoidable, but such is not the case!
7. The Burlington Yards are at or over capacity according to the Vermont Rail System (VRS). Further, VRS states that they have no room there for any added yard tracks. Even if space in the yards somehow could be found, ground power electrical connections will still need to be constructed there. It is, however, fair to note that for the last two summers VRS has stored its Dinner Train in the yards every night. They had to cut the train in half to store it on two tracks, something Amtrak would oppose for its train and which would require two power hook-ups—a further added cost. But if the Dinner Train can be kept for months in the yards there is reason to question VRS views on this issue.
8. Use of a storage/passing track south of the stations/yards is the least impactful option if the train must be stored in Burlington. This requires funding for an added switch/cross-over, which will be needed to subdivide the long existing passing/storage track to simplify operations and to construct the needed electrical hook-up. The train would have to be operated backwards for about five minutes each evening from the station to this site, after unloading riders at the Union Station platforms (and the reverse in the mornings before departure) and the Amtrak crew would need to taxi to their hotel. However, they already do this daily in St. Albans.
This area is mostly industrial and will present the least aesthetic problems. However, this area is not without residents either. The south end passing track is adjacent on the lake-side to homes and apartments over the northward part of its length. As noted, noise concerns will be reduced by using ground-based plug-in electrical power. But activities like car cleaning and sewage pumping will have to be done here as well.
VRS currently stores tank cars and other equipment on this track. Indeed, VRS sees it as an extension of the freight yard. This does not mean it could not be used, but it does suggest VRS might oppose its use.
The Preferred St. Albans/Montreal Option: The Burlington-Essex Junction branch line should be upgraded from “Class One” to at least “Class Two” and ideally “Class Three” track status to make this effective. Currently the branch is only cleared for 10mph operating speeds and is thus not appropriate for passenger operations. This Class Two upgrade would allow a 25mph passenger train speed limit on branch. Class Three track would allow 40mph running on much of the line and up to 59mph in theory on straight track segments. Any higher speed is impractical at most points here, due to the many curves, bridges, grade crossings and the Winooski River Canyon along this line.
The result at Class Two would be a 16-18-minute running time from Union Station to Essex Junction, and probably another 2-5 minutes faster at Class Three. North of there to St. Albans the speed limit on the existing Class Three track is already 59mph, with an operating time of 28 minutes. Thus, total running time BTV/SAB would be about 45-60 minutes each way. This upgrade is already a priority in the Five-Year Vermont State Rail Plan. Most importantly this short upgrade unites the currently isolated Vermont passenger train routes into a true network.
1. Existing arrangements are already in place to clean, service, store and reverse the Amtrak VERMONTER in St. Albans. The NECR terminal in St. Albans could easily accommodate a second daily Amtrak train-set. The ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS could use this existing facility. A second ground power outlet might be needed.
2. Currently substantial Federal grant opportunities exist in the rail-focused BUILD and CRISI awards programs for FY 2019/2020. Due to the complex rebuilding of the downtown rail tunnel in Middlebury, ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS service from Rutland to Burlington cannot begin before the autumn of 2021 and more likely the spring of 2022, so we have time to get Federal and/or state funding and do the work if we proceed now.
3. A fair estimate for reaching Class Two standards should be around $4,000,000 and to Class Three up to $7,000,000, based on recent similar work to reach Class Three track on segments of the VRS mainline. Obviously complete design and costing would be required. Work needed includes tie-replacement, ballast work, surfacing and some new rail, but this project is far from a total rebuilding of the line. Neither tunnel nor bridge reconstruction should be required for moderate speed passenger service. It should be noted this upgrade effectively eliminates the need for the second track, new switches, ground-power electrical hookups and bike-path relocation in Burlington, which will cost at least $1,000,000 and probably more.
4. Once arrangements in Canada have been completed to extend Vermont Amtrak trains to Montreal, both the ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS and the VERMONTER should be extended to that city. Extensive use of the ETHAN ALLEN train by Canadian visitors would be facilitated to Burlington, as well as Middlebury and Rutland. Same-day round trip travel would be made easy for these riders. Burlington would be a particular beneficiary of direct service from Montreal to the waterfront.
5. This should be possible early in the next decade, when access arrangements are finalized in Canada. Ultimately the existing VERMONTER (with its longer route) could be switched to running on an overnight schedule, to give our riders an option to arrive in New York and points south in the morning, as was the case with the MONTREALER before 1995. This creates both day and night Vermont trains,
6. The NECR may be willing to contribute to the BTV/ESX upgrades. Better track here facilitates freight operations throughout their system. Indeed, the project could be designed to do a more extensive upgrade by including upgraded bridges. That would allow full-weight 286-ton freight car use of the branch. Both the NECR and VRS mainlines then become compliant with contemporary freight train weight standards statewide. However, it is not essential to reach 286-ton standards to reach Class Two 25mph speeds on the branch for passenger trains.
7. VTRANS has expressed concerns about crew layover times in St. Albans. Federal rules require a minimum of ten hours off duty between trips for train operating crews. This issue only arises if the New York to Vermont schedule is such that the required layover time in St. Albans could not be met.
The ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS uses two Amtrak crews each day, one between New York and Albany and a second between Albany and Vermont. If, for example, the train left New York at 915AM it would arrive Burlington at about 500PM and St. Albans at about 600PM. The southbound return trip could leave St. Albans no earlier than 400AM the next morning to accommodate the layover rules. However, a departure around 600-800AM is much more likely. This would mean an 800AM Burlington departure, with New York arrival at 345PM. The layover time in St. Albans would be no less than 13 hours.
The train should not be stored in Burlington. Money spent in Burlington on a storage facility would be effectively wasted if the train ultimately serves Montreal.
The best solution for Burlington and Vermont is to fix the Burlington-Essex Junction Branch Line now, to allow the ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS to reach St. Albans and (soon) Montreal.
Savanna doesn’t have Burlington’s temperatures in Jan/Feb……..
Funny; these NIMBY’s parents stopped the I-189 connector road from continuing up along the old RR ROW to the Burlington waterfront a generation ago–and wanted rail service. Now the kids are bitching about that. Wonder how many folks will use the bikepath by the station between now and next May/June. Not many, I bet. And probably some of these folks think the trains are still powered by steam……
in fairness to Carl Fowler, I read his comments. I do not see NIMBYism in them, just objectively pointing out some of the issues with the proposed arrangement and trying to advocate running through Burlington to Essex Junction and St. Albans.
The “Vermont Railway will use the track to build long freight trains and block streets” comment is incorrect. They can already do that with the existing single track since there is no passenger service to get in the way.
As others have pointed out, there locomotives can be placed on standby and turned off. Though it can get cold up there and there will be a point during winter where the engine will idle all night. I also don’t think much of the dumping sewage comment. There is a similar truck roaming the streets constantly dealing with waste. It is called a garbage truck. Comes through my neighborhood once a week.
If there was no other place to service the train than Union Station I might agree, but that is not the case. The argument that the Burlington yards would need $50M to take a 600 foot train is belied by the fact that VRS stores its own Dinner Train there from May to October each year and found two tracks for the much longer AAPRCO special in 2017 as well. The yards are full because they are stuffed with O/S tank cars. Moving 10-15 tank cars clears the space.
But we can ignore the VRS yards if the train was in the short term to be deadheaded if necessary to St Albans. Running time would be about 80 minutes. This is obviously not a long term fix, there should be folks on board, but it avoids a probable $2M project for two four quadrant total exclusion gates, two number 8 turnouts, an 800 foot plus siding and the added service facility at Union Station when the St Albans option already built is only 36 miles away.
This is not a complex project. The line is in surprisingly good shape already. NECR did tie, ballast and some rail work this summer. And we have at least two years before the Amtrak will arrive.
Carl you can repeat as many times as you wish (Lord knows our Commander In Chief pulls this all the time), that this is not a NIMBY issue, but from anyone on the outside looking in, IT IS. I agree a better use of space may well be up the road in St. Albans, but until such time as the infrastructure is built to allow the train to travel there, get the Damn Train into Burlington. I “get” that Ms. Moulton poured millions into the renovation of Union Station, and I too applaud her efforts, but remember, it IS a “station”. And the VRS has every right to assemble trains anywhere on their property. Trains and tourism can live hand-in-glove with one another, even IF sewage has to be pumped and their is an occasional Diesel spill. Site the train in Burlington, write off the upgrade costs when the facilities and route to St. Albans are finished. You are not doing rail passenger advocacy any favors by continuing to point out all the negatives that a train will bring to town.
There is a veiled suggestion in Mayor Weinberger’s closing quote in the Seven Days article that somehow not building a servicing facility in front of Union Station and extending the freight yards three blocks north could stop Amtrak from coming to Burlington. This is simply untrue. The ETHAN ALLEN is coming as a “State Supported Train”–meaning it is running because Vermont has promised to pay its costs, provide safe track, stations and somewhere at the terminus a servicing center with sufficient time off for the crew to meet “Hours in Service Law” standards. All of this can be done without degrading the waterfront.
Vermont took over $70M is Federal grants for the track and station work to run this train. All would need to be repaid if we defaulted. Amtrak is coming, because we made it happen. On its own Amtrak would run neither Vermont Amtrak service. Both the VERMONTER and the ETHAN ALLEN are state-supported services. The question is where to service the extended train service–not whether it will come!
This is typical of “government at work.”
The obvious (and low cost) solution is to move the train 5 miles to Essex Jct and overnight it on the south leg of the wye.
And, BTW, this is typical Vermont where people want trains (“SAVE the environment”) until it intrudes on them.
First state to ban billboards;now it’s littered with solar arrays.
Doesn’t help that a current RPA board member publicly stated VERY NEGATIVE comments about the proposal to store the train in Burlington. From Carl Fowler, RPA Vice Chair, Northeast Division Liaison: “….. Each night the Amtrak train will create diesel fumes, noise and obvious disruption. The access for the fuel and sewage trucks will be very narrow. In winter a truck could easily fall into the roadbed. Spills will occur…….” You can see Carl’s complete post here: https://vtdigger.org/2019/11/04/burlington-residents-voice-opposition-to-waterfront-train-storage/ Carl lives less than 10 miles from downtown Burlington, VT. Can you say, “NIMBY”?
Where did they store the commuter train that Burlington ran in the early 2000s ?
Plug the trains into a power pole overnight and they make no noise. Then the complaints will be “I can see it from my place.” Just move the bike trail over to have them go into the town to spread out business. Bike trail activists are some of the biggest pain in the necks. By the way I’ve ridden my bike for years. I see far to many people on bicycles that ignore all traffic rules running red lights , stop signs and not yielding to pedestrians while yelling at others to get out of their way.
What dopes. Screw the NIMBYS.
In Savannah the Palmetto spends its night very quiet and peacefully. There is no excessive idling because there is 480V transformers that the train plugs into ground power. Granted the Savannah station is located in an industrial area with a small passenger rail yard and two very active CSX tracks shared with the Port but the Palmetto is almost unnoticeable.
There are always going to be people whining about any change.
They say that they cannot accept their precious lives after exposure to change.
Some people can’t accept that change is inevitable.
It always seems to be a small vocal crowd that claims to represent the majority of sentiment. When things are voted on they generally loose. But by bringing it before the city directly they smooze and cajole and talk about re-election and play on emotions.
Always some vocal rabble-rousers who claim they represent the majority of the people. When things are voted on they usually loose but when it is a city conssule
Duh. If you don’t like trains, DON’T BUY A HOUSE RIGHT BY THE F$#KING RAILROAD TRACKS!!